Jump to content

Fire Control, Ranging, Dispersion


RETAC21

Recommended Posts

Well the drill was to use a spotlight and another fire, I dont think it would prove adequate for aiming. Its not CQB after all. :D

The coax isnt ballistically matched. You really need a .50 with special ammunition to do it.

The best solution is what the israelis did, physically range out known structures as an aid to rangefinding. You can do that defensively, obviously it doesnt work on the offensive.

There is another way, ramming and shooting point blank. Well it always workedon World of Tanks.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, ive seen a 20 Pounder training video for firing HE in the indirect mode, and you have a fairly large beaten zone. It would probably work if the enemy is obliging not to move, and you have enough rounds to give it a go.

There was of course the friendly fire incident in 2003 where someone dropped a hesh round down a hatch, but that of course had been range by a laser beforehand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well the drill was to use a spotlight and another fire, I dont think it would prove adequate for aiming. Its not CQB after all. :D

The coax isnt ballistically matched. You really need a .50 with special ammunition to do it.

The best solution is what the israelis did, physically range out known structures as an aid to rangefinding. You can do that defensively, obviously it doesnt work on the offensive.

There is another way, ramming and shooting point blank. Well it always workedon World of Tanks.:)

You mean like at the Battle of Isandlwana, where, according to Hollywood. parties were went out to mark with stakes so the ranges so that the troops actually doing the firing could have a chance to hit the target(s).

 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=267243714342907   see 2:47

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know if they REALLY did it there, but the Israelis certainly did it on the Golan. Reputedly it annoyed the Syrians, who put the narrative about that the Israeli's had unfair laser rangefinders, which looking at photos, at that time the Centurion as far as gunnery was completely stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...The best solution is what the israelis did, physically range out known structures as an aid to rangefinding...

You know that is in every military manual since at least Napoleonic wars? Probably old as Romans or Greeks, or even more.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but clearly not by the Syrians or the Egyptians when they were on the defensive....

Besides, it wouldn't work with muskets. 2 discharges and the battlefield disappeared. It must have been an utter pain even placing artillery so it wouldn't get obscured before smokeless charges. It also didnt work so well with Longbows. Look at what happened at the Battle of Towton when the wind changed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Perhaps, but clearly not by the Syrians or the Egyptians when they were on the defensive...

And you know that how?

Quote

Besides, it wouldn't work with muskets. 2 discharges and the battlefield disappeared. It must have been an utter pain even placing artillery so it wouldn't get obscured before smokeless charges.

There are range cards from 1600s Austrian-Turkish wars in the Vienna military museum. It was obviously considered useful enough that they bothered with it.

Quote

It also didnt work so well with Longbows. Look at what happened at the Battle of Towton when the wind changed.

Range cards are not just for weapon ranging, it is important for coordinating troop movements and 1000 other things. Probably even more important before radio comms.

 

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bojan said:

And you know that how?

There are range cards from 1600s Austrian-Turkish wars in the Vienna military museum. It was obviously considered useful enough that they bothered with it.

Range cards are not just for weapon ranging, it is important for coordinating troop movements and 1000 other things. Probably even more important before radio comms.

 

The fact they lost despite outnumbering the Israeli's on two fronts is a fairly strong indication that it was the case...

You can read a number of accounts from the Israelis saying that the Arabs gunnery was not of a high standard. That the sagger seems to have made such a large impression on the Israeli military says a very great deal about how relatively ineffective their gunnery technique was.  Even the Iraqi's as late as 1991 do not seem to have learned the basic principle of accurate gunnery, and there were even reports of not zeroing their guns correctly. None of this points to having pre referenced range positions, even were they viable in the wretched conditions that were present in 1991.

Incidentally, how many American tanks were fitted with a QFC?

 

 

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course in my indolence I've read absolutely nothing about the performance of Arab armies in the past 50 years. 🙄

If you want to assert the Arabs did it, then by all means do so, but it's left up to you to explain why their gunnery was so shit despite doing so. You keep telling me how excellent the T55 and T62 was compared to its NATO competitors, yet in no Middle East war was it ever demonstrated. Both assertions simply cannot be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well of course in my indolence I've read absolutely nothing about the performance of Arab armies in the past 50 years.

Yes, they have lost all wars because they did not do range cards. Sure.

IDK why you don't get it, maybe because you were never really exposed to a military, but making range cards is so ingrained into every military, and is expected from section leaders and up to make those if they are going to hold some positions. Idea that "Arabs did not do it" is so utterly stupid that really does not even deserve a comment. It is like saying "never used company level movement" or "never coordinated artillery fires". Were they sloppy in whatever they did - sure. But thinking that they did not use something as common as range cards is... IDK, so wrong even coming from your "school of urban legends about armor".

Quote

 ...You keep telling me how excellent the T55 and T62 was compared to its NATO competitors...

Where? I have noted multiple times that exact type of tank hardly matters in grand scheme of things, as long as one side does not have some very distinct advantage (like thermals). T-55/T-62M48/M60/Centurion could be for all purposes interchanged and no Middle east war would change one bit.

Quote

, yet in no Middle East war was it ever demonstrated. Both assertions simply cannot be true.

Middle east wars also demonstrated that Shermans can kill tanks in droves also.

Also, Jordan lost not an insignificant amount of Pattons and Centurions. That says us what? Nothing except that Israel was better, due the myriad of factors.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bojan, it was all over the Chieftain thread.The Chieftain could easily be penetrated by T55 from 1966, the gun in T62 was as accurate as L11, and yet somehow, miraculously, multiple Arab armies were whipped by Centurion and Super Shermans crewed by conscripts and reservists. So either the equipment was at fault, the way the equipment was operated was at fault, or more probably, both.

I think you will find the majority of Jordan's Centurion s and M48s were killed by Centurions at least that was the implication in no Victor no Vanquished, but regardless, it just goes to show the difference an Army that takes gunnery seriously can make. Which again is an absolute no brainer.

Was poor gunnery the only reason they lost? If course not. But judging by Tals absolute dedication to superior gunnery, it seems to be a large part of the explanation of why Israel kept winning. Again, this is not exactly rocket science.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Bojan, it was all over the Chieftain thread.The Chieftain could easily be penetrated by T55 from 1966,

Yes. HEAT. That does not make T-55 "better" tank.

Quote

 the gun in T62 was as accurate as L11

IDK, give me dispersion numbers for L11, i have for 2A20. But both would be plenty accurate to engage targets at more range than then current FCSs allowed.

 

Quote

, and yet somehow, miraculously, multiple Arab armies were whipped by Centurion and Super Shermans crewed by conscripts and reservists.

You are forgetting Pattons and... drumroll... T-55s.

Quote

So either the equipment was at fault, the way the equipment was operated was at fault, or more probably, both

Lol.

Quote

I think you will find the majority of Jordan's Centurion s and M48s were killed by Centurions at least that was the implication in no Victor no Vanquished, but regardless, it just goes to show the difference an Army that takes gunnery seriously can make. Which again is an absolute no brainer.

Was poor gunnery the only reason they lost? If course not. But judging by Tals absolute dedication to superior gunnery, it seems to be a large part of the explanation of why Israel kept winning. Again, this is not exactly rocket science.

Again shifting targets Stuart? Better gunnery =/= Arabs were too stupid and lazy to use range cards which you have implied in your post...

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I don't think range cards would have been much of a factor for the Arabs. In the conflicts with the Israelis they were advancing onto prepared Israeli positions and that always favours the defenders with equal equipment. The Israeli also took a beating when the advanced into the prepared defenders equipped with Saggers.

 In the Gulf war they were defending but their equipment was lacking having a range cards with distances up to 2km even in a featureless desert doesn't help if you are being engaged from 2.5km. the fact they were willing to put up a fight doesn't make the inferior just unlucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for range cards - as lowly private and rifle section LMG gunner, I had a duty to make range cards for a section together with section leader and sniper/DM (who was also section 2inC). Those were basic ones. They had section position marked according to a noticeable local objects and other units, and range (sometimes more exact, sometimes rough one, in closest 100m) to those objects was done. Directions were generally done roughly (north-north-west and such), but some objects deemed more important would be marked with  exact angle from north. Those were then, with range cards from other rifle sections and more detailed ones (that always had had exact azimuths) from Plt MG section combined to Plt level range cards. Plt range cards were combined to company level range cards. I don't remember exactly all numbers anymore, but rifle section made those up the 800m (not always, eg. in conditions of low visibility, like forest or broken terrain there was no need to) since that was LMG and DMR effective ranges, MG section and rifle platoon up the 1200m, I don't remember for Co level, but there were two 82mm mortar sections in support platoon, so probably up the pretty long range (Co had hand-held LRFs for that task).

This was so standard task that it was done before anything else - eating, cleaning weapons etc. So it is really strange to me that someone would claim that any army would not do those or that was something "that Israelis did" when it is older than feudalism. :)

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Wobbly Head said:

 I don't think range cards would have been much of a factor for the Arabs. In the conflicts with the Israelis they were advancing onto prepared Israeli positions and that always favours the defenders with equal equipment. The Israeli also took a beating when the advanced into the prepared defenders equipped with Saggers.

Not just Saggers, in 1973. pretty decent % of israeli tank loses in Sinai was from gun fire. Whatever that was tank fire or ATGs is probably impossible to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wobbly Head said:

 I don't think range cards would have been much of a factor for the Arabs. In the conflicts with the Israelis they were advancing onto prepared Israeli positions and that always favours the defenders with equal equipment. The Israeli also took a beating when the advanced into the prepared defenders equipped with Saggers.

 In the Gulf war they were defending but their equipment was lacking having a range cards with distances up to 2km even in a featureless desert doesn't help if you are being engaged from 2.5km. the fact they were willing to put up a fight doesn't make the inferior just unlucky.

Yes, but on the Golan, the Israelis went on the offensive towards Damascus, and they didnt fight notably any better then, in fact if Khalani's book is any guide, they panicked. Nor did the Egyptians do any better. when Sharon advanced into Africa.

I think most of the Sagger losses we think about were 14th Brigade in the Sinai (A centurion unit IIRC) that counterattacked unsupported by infantry in the early days of the Sinai front, towards the strip taken by the Syrians, and their air support didnt work because of the SA6 threat. It was only when the Egyptians advanced past it to help their Syrian comrades that the IAF could get into the fight and it all suddenly fell apart.

The point is, its the sagger threat on the defence, when supported by air defences, that proved the nut that couldn't be cracked. The Egyptians even took Sagger training simulators up to the front to keep the crews current. Ive yet to read anything by the Israelis that says the Egyptians were equally adept at Tank gunnery in the defence, and you can look at their performance only 5 years earlier in 1967 when the Egyptians were entirely on the defensive when they similarly failed to demonstrate any ability to defend adequately.

 

 

Bojan, as always I respect your opinion, but if you are trying to sell me the idea that the Arabs were better on the defence than they were on the offence Im not buying it. If they WERE ranging terrain, then they were not zeroing their guns, something the Iraqi's failed to do time and again in multiple conflicts, or simply didnt have the gunnery training the Israelis did. There is nothing particularly revelatory pointing this out, so once again I cannot fathom why you have your pants in a wedgie yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, but on the Golan, the Israelis went on the offensive towards Damascus, and they didnt fight notably any better then, in fact if Khalani's book is any guide, they panicked. Nor did the Egyptians do any better. when Sharon advanced into Africa.

These were all cases after air dominance had been established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/6/2021 at 4:04 AM, DougRichards said:

You forgot looking straight down the barrel of the main gun....😀

What about using, in the right conditions, the spotlight as a targeting aid (almost suicidal I know 😬 ), or even using the normal co-ax?  Having another tank call out the range and bearing? 

Having other tanks range was and remains a quick and fairly accurate expedient.  Ranging using the coax was used when he fired HEP, having the TC range with the caliber 50 was also an option we trained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2021 at 4:08 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well the drill was to use a spotlight and another fire, I dont think it would prove adequate for aiming. Its not CQB after all. :D

The coax isnt ballistically matched. You really need a .50 with special ammunition to do it.

The best solution is what the israelis did, physically range out known structures as an aid to rangefinding. You can do that defensively, obviously it doesnt work on the offensive.

There is another way, ramming and shooting point blank. Well it always workedon World of Tanks.:)

So when our FM 17-12 described alternate methods of ranging such as using the coax or caliber 50, the authors didn't know what they were talking about?  You can use the coax, it is quite a ballistic match for HEP/HESH out to 1000 meters.  Using the caliber 50 the TC would walk his fire onto the target and note the range line that coincided with the tracers hitting the target.  Obviously you couldn't use this method when engaging a moving target or when surprise was needed, but for lighting up a defensive position or stationary target it worked well enough out to about 1800 meters (tracer burnout).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 11 months later...

Leopard1A1 with TEM-2A Opt. Range Finder

Is there anyone else here with such rare information? What color did the vertical measurement mark of the TEM-2A rangefinder have when the spatial image operating mode was switched on.

Is there any technical information about the FCS of the Leo1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...